Jastremski and McNally will testify at Brady appeal

Ring 6 · May 15, 2015

Sfpat said:
Goodell's first comment to Wells regarding the report should have been "what is the Patriots and Bradys side of the story?" Saying there is now new information doesn't hold water

I'm not defending anyone, I am defending the idea that Goodell would be smarter to exonerate the Pats now than to let it go to court. The response was he would get killed for saying the Wells report was flawed and inaccurate and I am pointing out why he wouldn't, at least not as badly as endorsing it AGAIN after rebuttal.

Rob0729 · May 15, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
What about people who want the truth? Michael Smith for one said that he believed the Wells report until he read the Goldberg response and now he doubts a lot of it.

I think you are looking at this from a consequence standpoint rather than from an evidence or decision making standpoint.
You are saying he will look bad changing the punishment but actually he will be changing it because vital information was withheld from him. What would really look bad is ignoring that vital information.

He isn't reading it a second time and changing his mind. He is reconsidering it based upon new information that calls much of it into question. Are you saying that he was supposed to know the facts that Wells left out, or dismiss his conclusion with nothing to refute it and therefore must ignore the new information?
The analogy is that the prosecution presents a case to indict someone, they are indicted and then after the defense presents their case, you are incompetent to now think they are innocent.

This isn't only after Goldberg's response but also after a hearing. I think it is unreasonable to say that someone hearing an appeal looks incompetent by having that appeal change their opinion, especially when the accused never had a chance to state their case before the initial ruling.

I guarantee you if Goodell ever publicly admits the Wells report was wrong either through a ruling or just to the press, his letter of resignation comes within two weeks. The owners will force him to step down. There would be no way he could survive it.

If he rejects the Wells report now, he is either admitting that he paid $5 million to Wells to produce a biased or inaccurate report or he was duped by Wells and Wells went into this with an agenda to get the Pats without his knowledge. Either way, it would show gross incompetence on his part and give Kraft the ammo to get him fired.

I think you have a better chance to find the league employee who called the Atlantic City police officer saying she saw the Ray Rice tape and it is awful than ever get Goodell to say the Wells report is wrong.

hwc · May 15, 2015

Sfpat said:
Goodell's first comment to Wells regarding the report should have been "what is the Patriots and Bradys side of the story?"

That was the most remarkable thing for me in reading the Wells Report. The complete lack of any other side to a very speculative narrative.

Ring 6 · May 15, 2015

Rob0729 said:
I guarantee you if Goodell ever publicly admits the Wells report was wrong either through a ruling or just to the press, his letter of resignation comes within two weeks. The owners will force him to step down. There would be no way he could survive it.

If he rejects the Wells report now, he is either admitting that he paid $5 million to Wells to produce a biased or inaccurate report or he was duped by Wells and Wells went into this with an agenda to get the Pats without his knowledge. Either way, it would show gross incompetence on his part and give Kraft the ammo to get him fired.

I think you have a better chance to find the league employee who called the Atlantic City police officer saying she saw the Ray Rice tape and it is awful than ever get Goodell to say the Wells report is wrong.

But that either or is true.
Are you endorsing him ignoring the facts to cover up that Wells did a terrible investigation?
Choosing a bad investigator is not nearly as bad as forcing your league into court and having elements of the CBA overturned, having a defamation lawsuit against your league and risking a fight against your Antitrust exemption.
Surely however this ends will make him look incompetent, but the level is much worse after losing in court, and he has no prayer wahtsoever of winning in court.

As with most things, doing the right thing is Goodells best move.
While this board villifies him as an idiot he has more than enough support to overcome admitting he made a bad hire.

grux · May 15, 2015

Rob0729 said:
Goodell had his chance to review the Wells report. He signed off on the punishment. The only people who think he would look good by overturning the punishments based on him deciding the Wells report is crap are Pats fans. The rest of the world would question his competence to be commissioner. Even people who feel the punishment was too hard.

You don't commend Wells on his report publicly and sign off on the punishments based on that report and then after Brady's appeal say the report is crap without telling the world you are unfit to run a billion dollar operation.

You might if it is the only way to get yourself out of the mess he put himself into. Maybe he thought Kraft would sit back and take another one for the shield. A lot has changed since the report was made public and his best course of action may be to over turn the original punishments.

Ring 6 · May 15, 2015

hwc said:
That was the most remarkable thing for me in reading the Wells Report. The complete lack of any other side to a very speculative narrative.

It was in the footnotes
"X offered their explanation (Y) but we found that not to be credible'

Sfpat · May 15, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
I'm not defending anyone, I am defending the idea that Goodell would be smarter to exonerate the Pats now than to let it go to court. The response was he would get killed for saying the Wells report was flawed and inaccurate and I am pointing out why he wouldn't, at least not as badly as endorsing it AGAIN after rebuttal.

I agree with your point that Goodell needs to end it now. The longer it goes, the worse it will get for him.

Ring 6 · May 15, 2015

Sfpat said:
I agree with your point that Goodell needs to end it now. The longer it goes, the worse it will get for him.

I'm not sure I believe the Goodell is out to get the Patriots mantra. I get why that seems to be the result, but I think it is more that Goodell has an image of himself that he wants to live up to, as the tough guy who stands up for all that is right, and is overwhelming fascinated with adhering to public opinion.
The Patriots have happened to be accused of 2 incidents that were his best chance to foster the image he wants to have, and since the Patriots are so hated, nailing them handles the public opinion end.

My theory doesn't explain Tampergate though.

Rob0729 · May 15, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
But that either or is true.
Are you endorsing him ignoring the facts to cover up that Wells did a terrible investigation?
Choosing a bad investigator is not nearly as bad as forcing your league into court and having elements of the CBA overturned, having a defamation lawsuit against your league and risking a fight against your Antitrust exemption.
Surely however this ends will make him look incompetent, but the level is much worse after losing in court, and he has no prayer wahtsoever of winning in court.

As with most things, doing the right thing is Goodells best move.
While this board villifies him as an idiot he has more than enough support to overcome admitting he made a bad hire.

None of the CBA will be overturned. The same thing will happen as it did in the Bountygate scandal. It will go to a Federal judge, he/she will overturn Goodell's ruling and it will get handed to a truly independent arbitrator who will likely overturn the suspension.

If your scenario is right that either he has to basically call the Wells report a sham or risk the CBA being rewritten, his is a goner. There is no scenario where he can keep his job. He might as well risk the court will not declare any part of the CBA invalid.

RunAmok · May 15, 2015

mihap said:
Have a question.
Why they dont show video of RAvens game and if Mcnally took the balls in the bathroom?
For me this is cruical evidence. If they are so high on text from preseason, why didnt they ask for Ravens video?

Tapes are only kept for 10 days and then they are recorded over. I assume that the Colts recording erased the Ravens recording since there was no need to save the tape form the Ravens game.

Rob0729 · May 15, 2015

grux said:
You might if it is the only way to get yourself out of the mess he put himself into. Maybe he thought Kraft would sit back and take another one for the shield. A lot has changed since the report was made public and his best course of action may be to over turn the original punishments.

I don't know why anyone thinks his best course of action is committing career suicide. Again, there is no way Goodell can survive hiring Wells, vouching for his credibility, backing the report and punishment when it was released, and then say the report is crap.

None of anything that came out in the last two weeks is new to Wells. If Wells didn't inform Goodell about this stuff, it is Goodell's fault for not getting the Patriots' side of the story from Wells. It is his own fault.

hwc · May 15, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
I'm not sure I believe the Goodell is out to get the Patriots mantra.

Did Goodell take any steps to correct the false information on halftime PSIs leaked to the media by his staff? Did he provide the accurate information to Patriots and allow them to correct the record?

I think it is more probable than not that Goodell was out to get the Pats in this case, regardless of his conscious intentions.

Ring 6 · May 15, 2015

Rob0729 said:
None of the CBA will be overturned. The same thing will happen as it did in the Bountygate scandal. It will go to a Federal judge, he/she will overturn Goodell's ruling and it will get handed to a truly independent arbitrator who will likely overturn the suspension.

If your scenario is right that either he has to basically call the Wells report a sham or risk the CBA being rewritten, his is a goner. There is no scenario where he can keep his job. He might as well risk the court will not declare any part of the CBA invalid.

I will just say that we have both laid out our cases, and I disagree and there is no point in clogging up the board by having both of us say the same thing 20 different ways.
We will see what happens.

JarOfMayo51 · May 15, 2015

carpetbagger1 said:
There is no way to tell how it will turn out until it happens. Hurry up and wait.

What is most interesting is Wells wanted to interview McNally a second time, and was unable to. The reports claim part of the reason for requesting that second interview was to discuss the "Deflator" text. Wells was never able to ask questions.

Calling McNally as a witness will now allow the league to ask him, point blank, what did you mean when you used the term "deflator." This could get hairy...

I think that's an easy thing to answer.

A) we joked using that term because part of my job was to ensure that the refs were deflating the balls to 12.5 psi before game time to suit Tom Brady's preference. Part of our ball prep was to fully deflate then reinflate the ball 2 times, thus I was labeled the deflator

B) Jim and I joked about me losing weight and I made fun of him once when he was wearing a ridiculously fluffy jacket.. deflator is the term we used as a joke, which stemmed from our roles from point A

using the term deflator doesn't imply guilt. He deflated balls to 12.5 before giving them to the refs, so he was in fact the "deflator" but that does not mean by any stretch that he was tampering with or violating the rules after the balls had left the officials locker room

Ring 6 · May 15, 2015

hwc said:
Did Goodell take any steps to correct the false information on halftime PSIs leaked to the media by his staff? Did he provide the accurate information to Patriots and allow them to correct the record?

I think it is more probable than not that Goodell was out to get the Pats in this case, regardless of his conscious intentions.

I think the end result is that he has screwed the Patriots, I just think his motivation is selfish not anti-Patriot

SVN · May 15, 2015

Unfortunately all this is going to take a very long time.

varjao · May 15, 2015

Sfpat said:
Reducing the penalty won't do Goodell any good as Brady will still take him to court. Only full exoneration will help, then Goodell can throw himself to the mercy of the owners and beg for forgiveness

It's basically this, and say to those behind this that next time they should come up with a stronger case because this one is ridiculous.

How come a linebacker that intercepts a ball can say it was deflated, this is an outrageous set up. I wonder what would they come up with in case Brady didn't throw that pick.

Peachhead · May 15, 2015

reneluar said:
Millions of fans want to know the context of "dorito dink", Goodell will give you the answers

"Commissioner, if his dink isn't yellow you must be mellow."

Ring 6 · May 15, 2015

JarOfMayo51 said:
I think that's an easy thing to answer.

A) we joked using that term because part of my job was to ensure that the refs were deflating the balls to 12.5 psi before game time to suit Tom Brady's preference. Part of our ball prep was to fully deflate then reinflate the ball 2 times, thus I was labeled the deflator

B) Jim and I joked about me losing weight and I made fun of him once when he was wearing a ridiculously fluffy jacket.. deflator is the term we used as a joke, which stemmed from our roles from point A

using the term deflator doesn't imply guilt. He deflated balls to 12.5 before giving them to the refs, so he was in fact the "deflator" but that does not mean by any stretch that he was tampering with or violating the rules after the balls had left the officials locker room

But we already know McNally's answer. Goldberg put McNally's answer in the rebutal, because, ou know, he asked him.

I don' t understand why people are treating the true explanation as if it were offered as a possible explanation. It was not, it was offered as the true explanation.

QuantumMechanic · May 15, 2015

PatriotsReign said:
This is true...Jastremski and McNally can not asked additional questions outside was has already been asked.

I've seen numerous people saying stuff like that. What's the specific source of that belief?

Jastremski and McNally will testify at Brady appeal

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

On the Game Day Roster

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Burn it all down!

Similar threads